Since I’ve gotten a driving wheel, I’ve been trying out all kinds of driving games. Yet I’m still at heart a computer nerd who knows nothing about cars at all and drives an automatic in real life. So when this popped up as a free game on Epic, I immediately picked it up, thinking I might learn a thing or two. As you might expect, no, you can’t learn how to be a mechanic from a video game but it does at least give you some idea of the mechanical components that make up a car and how they all fit together, plus the tools and equipment that are found in a garage. Unfortunately it is also a simulator in another, less pleasant way. After a while playing this becomes repetitive and grindy enough that it feels almost like a real job.
I know this should really be watched in the cinemas but the three-hour running time put me off at the time. In the event as great as this would have looked on the big screen, I was glad I watched it at home as it’s dense enough that spacing out the experience makes it better. This film has its share of detractors but I think it’s utterly fantastic and certainly better than Christopher Nolan’s version. It’s a portrayal of a Batman that is less superhero and more obsessed ordinary man who puts on a costume to be a vigilante. Accordingly director Matt Reeves has drawn inspiration not from superhero action movies but noirs, political thrillers and spy films. The result is a film that transcends its genre and deserves to be taken seriously.
It’s really quite insane that the current Golden Age of television has brought us an actually good adaptation of a property as notoriously unfilmable as The Sandman. I’ve never read the Neil Gaiman comic book series not being much of a DC fan but I couldn’t help but hear of it and even learned many of the stories in it through sheer osmosis. As I understand it, this isn’t a perfectly faithful adaptation and distances itself from being too directly tied to the DC universe. But it’s faithful enough in spirit and intention as approved by Gaiman himself that its far better than I ever imagined could be possible to see within my lifetime.
I think this counts as an Asian-American film as not a single white person appears in it. More than that, it stands out as a distinctively Hawaiian film by a director, Christopher Makoto Yogi, who I haven’t heard of before this, but seems to ground almost all of his work in that state. This kind of close, personal association is always a good sign in my book. This film didn’t always work for me as it sometimes reaches for the sublime and doesn’t quite touch it. Still, it’s a very fine film that contemplates a man’s death after a long life.
This is another mainstream novel that I picked up because it has a somewhat science-fiction premise. It’s even new and was included in The Economist as one of their best books of the year. To me however this is another case of a mainstream book that isn’t really about the technology at its core at all but how its presence and its invention altered the lives of a group of people the novel chooses to follow. It’s also a stylistically clever book in which each chapter is drastically different, including one that is written entirely as text messages between characters. I was impressed by the quality of the writing and the complex psychological profiles of the many weird characters in it, but this was never intended to be science-fiction at all.
I’ve loved every one of Asghar Farhadi’s films I’ve seen so far and I do consider this to be another great film. However the story seems to have been inspired by a real-life event as covered in a documentary made by a student of Farhadi named Azadeh Masihzadeh. She claims that Farhadi pressured her to sign a statement that the original idea came from him which she now denies and the two have since been embroiled in contentious lawsuits. I don’t think ideas belong to anyone as execution is everything but Farhadi seems to be in the wrong to me at least in being so insistent about not acknowledging any contribution whatsoever from someone so much further down the hierarchy of power than himself. Ironically this is itself the theme of the film and makes its statement about Iranian society much more powerful.
So this is certainly an eye-catching title for a film. My contention in this post will be that while the main character may be seen be as a bad person as judged in accordance to conventional values, director Joachim Trier employs the title ironically and tries to portray her in a mostly sympathetic light. As always the mark of an interesting film is how much discussion it engenders and this makes for a wonderful subject of conversation. I’ve never watched any of Trier’s work before this but I believe he is really on to something when it comes to the future of human relationships.
